How can God exist beyond space and time?

I'm trying to make sense of this "existence" outside space and time. How can something , anything exist yet not exist in space-time? Something completely disconnected from length, width, height, or point in time....
Is this a "truth" that is beyond human comprehension? For maybe this may be one the "truths" that escapes the human intellect. However there are also non-sense statements that require filtering, I believe that existence beyond space and time is one statement that requires filtering.
Does God pops in and out of existence along with virtual particles? Or is God tightly curled up( about a Planck length?) in one or more dimensions of a Calabi-Yau manifold? Or is this existence as useful as the Cosmic Peanut Butter Theory?
Asking if it's possible means nothing, however. The question to ask is, what makes anyone say this? What is the evidence for such assertions? Show me how does anyone got to this statement.
Please as you deploy your arguments don't conflate suppositions with explanations, for these are not interchangeable. Just because it can be imagined, does not make it valid, or even explanatory.
And no scripture as proof.("Behold, heaven and the highest heavens cannot contain Thee... (1 Kings 8:27)) etc, Please and thank you.
Keep the mental contortions civil & courteous, even artful which is always cool. Let's learn from each other!

Closing Statement from Carlos Marquez

The operational word in my question was "how" could god or anything exists beyond space and time?, And the core answer after the often heated exchanges is that some folks believe such a fantastic particular possible yet unable to render a demonstrable explanation -why?- because it is impossible.
The incredible thing is that folks believe dogmas as such without questioning. Is similar to lets say slavery or interracial marriage or the prohibition, many in power used (still do ) the Bible to back up such views and today-thanks in a big part by Secular Humanism- are not active policies in our country. Many a Christian believed that all above mentioned stances were correct just as god exist beyond space and time.

I think that as a whole mankind is evolving away from dogmas into new horizons, faith based or divinely revealed knowledge will take a backseat to reason based knowledge. And for that process there is a demonstrable "How".

Jul 28 2013:
Carlos,
Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I read your initial question (I.e. "how can God exist beyond time and space"), as well in reading many of the posts below, I think a discussion of this nature needs some further clarity and guidelines (mutually agreeable of course) before proceeding in any depth.
1.) definition of terms. "God", "time"' and "space" are rather large concepts, which can be defined by various individuals (based on their own experience and ability) in various different ways. In reading many of the posts below it appears this may be a source of some misunderstanding. I would suggest use of mutually agreeable definitional terms.
2.). The question of plausibility. What is plausible? I would suggest coming to some mutually agreeable terms of what is plausible.
3.) methods of knowledge. What are the various ways in which we might "know" the existence of something.
4.)acceptable proof/evidence for existence. What is acceptable proof? I would suggest coming to some mutually agreeable terms for what constitutes acceptable proof of existence.
5.) Finally a discussion of "how God can exist beyond space and time".

A wise man once said, "I prefer clarity to agreement", and i tend to believe that. In any discussion I prefer just that. I'm not trying to argue you over to my position, just trying to find clarity. Along the way we might find we disagree, but at least we will be clear on what it is that we disagree on. We will see how far we get. Sound fair?
Best regards,

Before we begin this collaboration that if I write anything that you find offensive to please let me know. This is a quest and is the journey that I enjoy.

Defining God: If I told you"the world is round" or "water is made up of f hydrogen and oxygen" I think that you would agree that those are well supported claims or "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the USA"
-you get the point-.
Still other claims have no supporting evidence like "gremlins are green" ( I mean no offense) "Pegasus had wings" In those cases in which the evidence is truly inconclusive, one may legitimately say with regard to a claim, "I don't know whether it's true." every claim must have some evidence in its favor otherwise I think is arbitrary.
To the statement: "Divine being X exist in an inaccessible realm of reality" is either unknowable or impossible. Logic can refute impossible beings, but logic can't show that POSSIBLE beings exist without evidence.

Jul 29 2013:
Carlos,
Stay with me here, we will get there, but in proper time. Your asking for evidence (item 4) before we have even defined mutually agreeable terms. Common sense and scientific method tell us that all we need to start this journey is : an interest/willingness (basis for inquiry), the formulation of a question, and a hypothesis (conjecture based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question). You've created this TED forum and formulated the question: "how can God exist beyond time and space". I assume that based on this you have some level of interest in the concepts God, space, and time...enough at least to warrant you to have started this TED conversation and pose the question eliciting responses from others.
Many millions of people worldwide currently claim to have knowledge of God, time, and space. This is the subject/basis of our inquiry. Our only requirement initially is to define terms in a manner consistent with, and inclusive of these purported beliefs. The terms will be working terms which can be revised later, until mutually confirmed and agreed upon.
I will start. I suggest a working definition of God to be: the original and creative force of life. Again, this is not asserted as fact, but simply a mutually agreeable working definition to which we can verify/assess plausibility, knowledge, proof (i.e. evidence), etc., later. I believe this definition would be consistent with and inclusive of most beliefs espoused by various current religions. Would you agree?

Jul 29 2013:
Steve,
I appreciate your willingness & patience to navigate this issue with me-I'ts Monday(busy) so pardon the late reply-.
Now I agree that we should make "distinctions" so we can build a common language in order to build meaning, I also think that the 6 or so days left on this thread may not be enough time to work on the issue.
On the Deity issue if we were to assume a definition that we know is not asserted as fact we start on shaky ground, can I please counteroffer to you to start first with what is known (time, space for example) to gain traction then move from there to more metaphysical terrain. That way we start with known knows(the things that we know), then to the known unknowns(things that we know we don't know or think we know). Like putting the horse in front of the carriage rather than the opposite. What say you?

It's OK if this process of building a common language takes time-it should- Even if it takes another thread.

Jul 29 2013:
Carlos,
This might indeed take some time. Please understand that a "definition" is nothing more than a common/shared understanding. Its meaning is purely conventional and may or may not have a basis as fact. What determines its basis in fact is the application of some standard for plausibility, knowledge (I.e what can be known), and evidence and proof.
That having been said, I understand your uneasiness and hesitation in starting with the God concept first. If you would prefer we can first define "time" and/or "space". So that we might truly gain some traction in our discussion, I will defer to you. Please feel free to suggest a working definition for "time" and/or "space".
Regards,

So space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration.
In Physics we routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Surprisingly the math involved is not really hard-compared to other Physics-.

Please do watch & read the info (I enjoy the animations!) and I hope that the spacetime explanations is satisfactory to you.

Comment deleted

Hawkins: Imaginary time: Although not a string-theory idea, it remains a viable option even within string theory since physicists have no evidence that any of the extra dimensions of the universe is not a time dimension instead of a spatial one.
Also Some Guy, notice that in imaginary time calculations are completed they are converted back to"real time" (by using Wick Rotation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation
When the paths are "summed over" the classical path comes out as most probable. So imaginary Time is just a mathematical trick to make an approach(sum over histories) to Quantum Mechanics Mathematically tractable via a Wick rotation.
As we scale down to the elementary particles -the realm of QM- things get really spooky, but for the effects of the ordinary speeds and the ordinary world we live in - I - would like to stay with classical spacetime to develop meaning and a common vocabulary and wherever it takes us.

Jul 31 2013:
Carlos,
I appreciate the links with regards to spacetime. I'm familiar with the concept. Your original question (I.e. "how can God exist beyond space and time") deals with the concepts as separate entities (I.e space and time, not spacetime), as such I would suggest defining the terms separately and independently if one another. Secondly, you state that space and time are "physical constructs", but I'm not sure I agree. How does "time" (proper) have physicality? I would argue that "time" has no physical substance, but is simply a relational quality. The physical and mathematical qualifiers are not necessary. I would suggest definitions that can be more universally applied without qualification. As an example, "time" could be defined as an interval between two points on a conitinuum, a duration.

Jul 31 2013:
Steve,
My original question is prisoner of language, That is I posited it as commonly used in theist vernacular.
It seems to me that time exists as much as your "center of gravity" exists. Meaning, it doesn't really exist in any physical sense since it is an abstraction over our usual language of normal three-dimension existence. That said, it still "exists" in a different but congruent sense within a larger abstract framework. Time is something of a relational entity, in that it describes a relation between two moments (object-states) relative to some standard unit.
At times I grab concepts like spacetime and lace them up as you say "physical constructs" Thanks for keeping me honest.
Is it agreeable to you if we establish that an event must occur in space at a determined time tied up to a frame of reference?

PS I don't think this is going to be a 4 day endeavor, may I suggest we build another thread to keep this alive?

Jul 31 2013:
Carlos,
Indeed, we are all "prisoners of language". I think that is an important sentiment in a discussion such as this. We all (religion and science) should be aware of and respect our limitations, and language certainly is one limitation. For the sake if our discussion, I'm agreeable to the premise "that an event must occur in space (not yet defined) at a determined time (not yet defined) tied up to a frame of reference". Note that in attempting to define "space" and "time", we have used the words "space" and "time", which seems to me circular. More than a definition, we have created a premise. We have not defined the actual content of either "time" or "space".
I hope you will be as generous as we attempt to create a working definition/premise for the term "God".

This may well be more than a 4 day endeavor, but I think it worthwhile. I've got nothing but " time".

So that we don't get "circular"
Space: Three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.

Time: A dimension(math. as a way to plot in a graph) in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, also the measure of duration of events and the intervals between them.

Aug 2 2013:
Steve,
The degree( scope - range - size -) to which something has spread- extent- I'm rather busy as well, so it surely looks as this needs an extension of time ( well defined or otherwise!) so we are both in agreement. What I'm getting from this small process that you and I are engaged in is that is not as easy as it may seem at prima fascia and I bet the source of many a misunderstanding between theist & atheists is the simple "failure to communicate". I understand you don't want to use classic relativistic spacetime for this conversation? is that correct? Thanks.

Aug 3 2013:
Carlos,
You will recall in my original post to this thread a quote that read, "what I prefer is clarity to agreement". I think if more people had that approach, regardless of the topic, you might find that most discussions which might at their outset appear to be fundamental disagreements are more often times than not, more simply a series of "failures to communicate". There are other times when when our ability to communicate is hampered by the limits of language and word choice.
With regards to your question, I'm not opposed to use of any definitional terms (classical spacetime, or otherwise). I do believe it is important in definitional terms to separate what we know, from what we posit, from what we do not know. What I am suggesting is that the "classical" definitions used by physics to define "spacetime" lack in some key ways ( I mean no disrespect). We posit that our perception of spacetime has a "dimensional" quality to it, and we go to great length to document its relational qualities to our own senses, but we still don't ever define its content. In a material senses ( I believe you suggested you are a materialist), what is the material content of "space"or "time"?
Once a premise is established (I.e. the concept of "spacetime" or "God") everything that flows after it can appear quite rational and logical, it even provides great meaning to many in providing a shared context in which to describe the events they see and experience all around them. Ask someone to describe the material content on which the premise is built and the true and difficult work begins.
For the sake of our discussion, I'm ok with the definitional premise if you are. Provided we are both clear on what is known and what is posited.
Best regards,

Aug 4 2013:
Steve,
OK , so that we have operational definitions to work with , and since you are OK with spacetime, I'll say let's start with that definition with the caveat that if we both see that as we traverse this waters it needs revision so it better explains any other concept then we should get the wrench out. What's in the fabric of spacetime? Let's think of it as a geometrical construct (H,W,L + T). Space and time are not tangible 'things' in the same way that water and air are, or a medium like aether ,spacetime has a structural quality of the gravitational field. For example: We assume that light has constant velocity in vacuo, more precisely it is invariant between inertial frames, and follows the shortest distance between two points. We also know that gravity causes things to accelerate in it's presence. So what happens when light passes through a gravitational field? ---Light changes direction--- the speed is scalar so does not change, but change direction you change velocity(vector) (To accelerate an object is to change its velocity, which is accomplished by altering either its speed or direction and it accelerates). And that means light follows a curved path in the presence of gravity. What we are seeing is light following the shortest path( to us is a curve in 3D), The path it follows is spacetime. It is purely a geometric construct.

Aug 5 2013:
Carlos,
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Ive been quite busy as of late. Please let me know if you choose to continue the conversation. I still hold out hope for our little endeavor.

3 first the net energy of the universe is zero. second universe creation capability does not mean all powerful. it just means simething is capable of creatung this universe, not every imaginable universe.

4 are you saying the energy in the ubiverse has always existed. no need for a god then. also does this mean energy is part of the universe that you say had a beginning.

Jul 31 2013:
Steve, It's too bad this thread has been so lost and derailed. I thought I was actually going to learn something. I think you had a great plan that could have brought this discussion somewhere. If you ever decide to take it up in another forum, let me know. I think you could teach me a lot.
Best regards
Shawn

Jul 5 2013:
When I sit in the garden & watch the bees working the flowers, or the birds hanging from the feeder, it is obvious to me that God exists. When Dawkins gets red in the face insisting that God doesn't exist, it is obvious to me that he is angry with God. My tropical fish have no idea where I live. It is unreasonable of me to expect to understand how God lives; like my fish, I am just grateful that He does.

Jul 8 2013:
Peter,
I'm also at awe at the Universe but that awe alone is not evidence for the existence of any Gods or the Wizard of Oz.Just because we can conceptualize anything but that alone does not make it real. I don't really know if Professor Dawkins is upset at a God he claims does not exists, I dare say that his contention is with humans, but what do I know?
I have two Siamese fighting fish (love the color hues) and it would be unreasonable to expect that fish would figure out Quantum Mechanics or Pre-K Math. Just because a question is difficult to answer we can't say well 'God did it".

"I baked some muffins!"
"How?"
"What do you mean - there is no how. I baked them - that's all that happened."
"Did you use ingredients? Was there mixing involved? Heat?"
"What nonsense questions. I already told you exactly what happened - I baked some muffins. That's the whole story."
"Oh..."

Aug 3 2013:
To the materialists,
Just to remind everyone, the question at hand is " how can God exist beyond space and time". If you are going to force others to define God in strictly material terms, shouldnt you do the same for "time" and "space"? What is the physical/material content of "time" and "space"?
Classical physics typically posits that time and space have "dimension", and goes to great length to document and measure its relation to other things, but what is the physical/material content of "time" and "space"?
There is an current and ongoing conversation string burried deep below between Carlos and myself in which we are attempting to define terms and build some qualifying structure around his initial question.
Best regards,

Jul 31 2013:
Why does something need space and time to exist? As long as this existence has no need to interact with current forms of energy and matter, it can exist anywhere, next to you and me, just like another form of energy which doesn't need to occupy any space. Right?

Jul 31 2013:
freshi,
To your question: Why does something need space and time to exist?- because all that we know does-To exists implies that that existence it's in spacetime.
There is no known form of existence that is independent of spacetime or like you seem to suggest , non-spatial, non- temporal.

Aug 1 2013:
Freshi,
The laws of physics at the level of everyday life are completely understood. Any new kind of matter or forces that would interact in noticeable ways with ordinary matter would already have been discovered.
Let's say I propose a field that at points of excitation gives us a particle "G" and when that particle interact with us- humans- it triggers a link to the broader field of G that has non-zero value across all points in the universe and since this happens simultaneously in many other humans you are also linked to them via the G field (forming a collective consciousness), moreover I could postulate that in the G field vibrations there is encoded information regarding the universe its formation and about how life was indeed created by this field and its interaction with carbon molecules,EMR, and amino acids to form life. Furthermore the G particle conveys information to humans "talks" to us via electrochemical impulses in our neurons, I can also postulate that the G particle is everywhere as a field thus being not bound by spacetime, it pops from past to future to the here and now, and from multiple universes and more.

Now here is the short analysis: I'm proposing a particle "G" and lets say that it interacts with a proton and the "G" particle goes its own way, if that were true then I would be able to smash protons together and create "G" particles because if the interaction with a "G" particle is so strong that it will interact with a human brain it would have been found-and it hasn't-. So "G's" could exist, but if they do they are not strong enough to be detected, or it would be to heavy to create or too short lived to detect, thus not relevant in your everyday life,- can't blame "G"s for being in a bad mood -
Could there be new forces in nature? -Yes- but they must interact with protons,neutrons and electrons and if they hide they must be either too weak or have very short range thus not relevant in everyday life.

Thanks

Comment deleted

Jul 31 2013:
Thanks for your point. Scientists also suggest multi-universe and 10+1 dimension, so when someone says space and time, does it mean our physical world or a broader concept. Before clearly define all of these terminologies, it would not be easy to carry on the discussion.

I think Brain Greene's talk at TED might be related to what we are discussing here.

Aug 1 2013:
Alberto,
There is no-nothing in Physics, The nothing with absolute zero value absence of anything is a philosophical concept. (no lab in the world holds a jar of nothingness) we don't know what nothing is in actuality so we can compare it to something.
You are right 0 # 1
All of our known physical laws breakdown at singularities due to the infinite curvature of spacetime. Hence, we say, "One second after the big bang..., An hour after the big bang..., etc." Because, we simply don't know what happened at the instant of big bang. If there were events before the big bang, we cannot use those events to determine what happened in its future, because our laws don't work at singularities.As far as we know, there haven't been a single consequence of the events before the big bang. So, it doesn't make any sense to talk about those events, Of course that doesn't mean the Big Bang theory is complete .

Comment deleted

Aug 1 2013:
Alberto,
In my example the "G" particle if able to interact with a human brain at an atomic,molecular level should been already detected, since that "contact" presupposes a strong interaction. That technology is already available , yet I must admit not calibrated to find my "G" particles or "G" field. I wish they were -I'll be up for a Nobel Prize-, (kidding!).

That said there is a lot of unknowns knowns and unknown unknowns .

Thanks

Comment deleted

Aug 1 2013:
Alberto,
If thee was a "nothing" as you postulate 0=0 I mean nada, zilch, -it just doesn't exists- now that said; If you know of any Research lab or otherwise that has a Jar of nothingness I would rather much like to take a gander at it.

Otherwise BB and the other explanations follow suit.

Thanks

Comment deleted

Aug 2 2013:
Alberto,
I can imagine many things but that doesn't mean that they exist, lets take 0/0 what does that means?IMO-It doesn't mean anything until we assign it value-or take 0 to the nth power where n is more than 0 as an integer so if 0^3=0*0*0=0 so n is the value where 0 occurs n times. But if 0 occurs 0 times the value has no meaning or you can say a^0 then (the value of a string where 0 occurs 0 times) but notice that a^0=a^n-n=a^n/a^n=1 for n#0 ,a#0, thus you can safely assign a^0 a value 1 when-when- a#0.

Well , I'm not a famous scientist nor can I tell you with certainty in a singularity where the laws of physics break and engage it's spooky.
Where will the "perfect nothing" (philosophical) would exist? -I don't know for if it was to exist in this universe it will be bound by spacetime and it will be "contaminated" with something. Thus IMO it has 0 probability to exist.

Comment deleted

Jul 30 2013:
Alberto,
Yes- human understanding is limited , and look at the last 100 years and see all the progress we've made! Sure we probably are just flexing our noggins here , but I've learned quite a bit. It's the Universe quite an enigma?-yes-but just because a problem is difficult we should not stop questioning we keep at it pushing the boundaries of what we don't know.
Think Alberto how many diseases we've conquered, powered flight, information & energy manipulation, and why not?-Physics-
In my opinion you & I can stare at the universe and be awed by it and that is cool, but I want to keep pushing beyond to the unknown-even if I fail trying-
Prof Einstein was a great man.

Thanks

Comment deleted

Jul 31 2013:
Alberto,
Sometimes I think that this incredibly vast and complex universe, with its hundreds of billions of galaxies, its uncountable trillions of stars – all of this – was made just for us? hmm -Nah-
I mean Alberto look at the Sun ( actually don't look at it directly-kidding-) it shines at the "perfect" temperature for us.
If I understand you correctly the world was designed for us( by a Creator) and through revelation(from the Creator) we learn more & more. So if X is perfect for humans, therefore God (or some other creator) made the universe.( I do not mean any offense I'm just trying to understand you).
Why is the sun perfect for us?- It isn't,- we have evolved to make use of the sun as it is. Plants have evolved to convert solar energy into food through chlorophyll. Humans and animals have evolved to harness solar energy for warmth. We have adapted to the environment in which we live.

Science is not Divine revelation but hard work by talented folks,lots of trail & error And Natural Methodology, has brought Science to its present state.

I fell a bit of teleological argument (universe designed with a purpose) but then again I could be wrong.

What Prof Einstein believed is in his experience, and I respect his opinion and yours as well.

There is an element of randomness to our existence take for example the asteroid that hit earth long ago and killed many lifeforms on earth changing the Natural Selection landscape.

2. Statistics: of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen; where all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. Unpredictable.

OK, I would use the definitions above depending on the exact context or situation.I don't dispute that there are patterns in the universe, though, and even in truly random sets — like sequences of numbers — patterns will emerge. The existence of patterns does not contradict the existence of randomness. I also think that, in many circumstances, all members of a set of possible outcomes are either equally likely to occur, almost equally likely to occur, or if not then it's not possible to predict which is the most likely to occur. Theists may often believe that whatever happens does so as part of God's plans for them and the world, or God guiding events and causing certain outcomes to occur rather than others.
I could be wrong but under your lines you think that I believe in an universe without order — that randomness entails disorder — and that therefore the existence of order in the universe means that some God must exist.
The equation of randomness with disorder is incorrect,My thinking does not entail that the universe be disordered and order can in fact arise spontaneously, without any directed intervention from a conscious being. It can't be denied that the universe has order, structure, and patterns. I don't accept the idea that order, structure, and patterns are incompatible with randomness or that they require the prior presence of some "designer"

Comment deleted

Aug 1 2013:
Alberto,
Obviously there are patterns in our universe , we can calculate the orbit of the moon or the rotation of Earth for example, and yes once there was more spacetime available after the BB-and the energy"thinned out"- some (things were cooling down), matter began to form. And the mechanics of such events are known. This is also true for solar systems, galaxies, the calcium in your bones or the iron in your blood.
Your other inquiries for spontaneous life, or life with no purpose is off topic but I think that you are implying a fine tuning of the universe and a designer -so fine-tuning, if it existed, would demonstrate design.That argument assumes teleology in regard to life as a premise in order to prove teleology. It is, to a certain extent, a circular argument.

Also you are assuming that order cannot come out of chaos?-it has- we are here.

Jul 30 2013:
Alberto,
I agree with you with regards to the inconsistency of any attempt to define God as a coporeal being (God by definition would not be God, if you could). I'm puzzled, however by your statements that "it is laughable....". Is it the " belief" that makes it "laughable", or the attempt? Surely you understand that both the religious and the scientific mind attempt to "explain the forces that created the universe...", they simply do it in different ways.

Best regards,

Comment deleted

Jul 30 2013:
Alberto,
Laughter is a good thing. We should never take ourselves too seriously. We also should understand and appreciate our limitations. But just because we have limitations does not mean we should not attempt to learn as much as we can (both scientifically and spiritually) about the universe in which we live. These limitations never seemed to stop Einstein in his pursuit. If anything these limitations simply provided him a heathy sense of wonder and respect.

Comment deleted

Jul 31 2013:
god in this sense seems to be describing our ignorance about the universe.
what it is and why it is this way.
not necessarily a person or intelligence.

to assume a person or intlligence is behind these unknowns is simoly an argument from ignorance.

the order in a crystal does not require any agency. as to the fundamental nature and existence of the universe there is no sign of any agency just human nature to assume one to explain stuff we dont understand.

there could be agency but just in the same way little gods might be arranging atoms in a crystal. they could be. but know way to know if magical undetectible agency behind anything and everything.

the reasonable position seems to be to withold belief on the claims of invisible agency whether it be for crystaks, gravity, disease, universe origins etc until there is sufficient evidence.

Aug 5 2013:
The subject of how can God exist outside of space and time has been discussed and the subject has evolved , that is normal simply because if one for example talks about the existence of say a carrot then the subject will evovle, overall we acquire a greater and wider understanding, time and space however have no material existence, time is but a man made sun calander time and space is the void with matter in it , space itself cannot be touched seen felt , its the very question einstein would fail to answer me if I asked him how he managed to fuse time and space to create spacetime by which his GR is based upon.
As for the existence of God and the creation of life to continue the subject below then the odds of a complex molecule as noted by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a statement using Rubik’s cube in order to illustrate the likely odds of acquiring a solitary biopolymer molecule. These biopolymers or to be exact biological polymers, which are large molecules, such as found in nucleic acids or found in proteins. Sir Fred then demonstrates by the illustration below as to the improbability of evolution and natural selection managing anything.
At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
If one delves deeply into scientific hypothesis one will realise that proof of anything within seems lacking other than they have the dogmatic presence of science dominating.

Aug 4 2013:
Ross,
I notice that the talk of Dr. Gerald Schroeder forms the corner stone of your posts. I like to share with some reflections.

A scientist, particularly one with a religious commitment, isn’t expected to always behave and think scientifically and some scientific workers still bear medieval mindset. Persons of this sort have psychological drives, emotional tendencies and a legacy of theistic programming that decelerate the horses of reason and logic. A bench mark is that these people can’t get along with uncertainties/unanswered questions (as though one has to decipher all ultimate puzzles in one’s life time) and thus feel an urge to accept absolute, final, though irrational, answers to find personal peace, tranquility and comfort. These non-scientific drives make some smart people say very stupid things and commit gross errors.
It is like the example of that scientist who was attending a conference on smoking and cancer with a cigarette in his mouth and when he was asked why he said “I know that what I do is non-logical but I can’t do otherwise”.

On the necessity of ethics and honesty I completely agree with you and this also points to the fact that acquiring intelligence or talent in certain discipline doesn’t guarantee personal maturity or foster humanitarian attitudes. These aspects represent other traits of the human personality (note how a genius like Newton was actually an aggressive, revengeful man and participated actively in anti-Catholic politics)

Aug 2 2013:
Friends,
The past few hundred years have witnessed a significant degree of tension between science and religion. Since very early on, religion has provided a certain way of making sense of the world -- a reason why things are the way they are. In modern times, scientific explorations have provided their own pictures of how the world works, ones which rarely confirm the pre-existing religious pictures. Roughly speaking, science has worked to apparently undermine religious belief by calling into question the crucial explanatory aspects of that belief; it follows that other aspects (moral, spiritual, cultural) lose the warrants for their validity.
In ancient times religious concepts and mandates were unquestionable-some still think that way today- and state enforced(today that also happens) Can God exist beyond space & time (spacetime) ? would've been sacrilege.
With the refinement of the scientific method science reaches conclusions based on observations (filtered by scientific process) rather than just stating : "Venus IS the goddess of Love" a non-seen(or measured) event. The answers is to hide Venus in a realm beyond measure, making the goddess either unknowable or impossible. The only Venus left to mankind is the one inside the person mind and to that "version" of the goddess aim worship and praying.

Osiris was very "real" to the Egyptian charioteer, as Ares to Greek archer, countless people in these and other cultures believed in the veracity of their faith.They "baptized" children they consecrated homes , they pray for blessings etc.Just as we do in 2013.
I'm looking for a complete, coherent, and simple way for understanding reality, Deities make things complex, there are alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a completely formal, materialist description.God(S) are a venerable conclusion, brought up to date by modern cosmology; but the dialogue between people who feel differently will undoubtedly last a good while longer.

Aug 3 2013:
Dude, the further I scroll down the more comments I see deleted, more than in other conversations... am I next?... what is going on?...

Anyways, I think you would really like a four volume work entitled 'The Masks of God' by Joseph Campbell that traces "religion" through Primitive Mythology, Oriental Mythology, Occidental Mythology, and Creative Mythology. Most people have NO IDEA how close-minded and culture-biased their deepest, most sincere, most individualized thinking is. Time and space are much better cult leaders and brain washers than anyone gives them credit for. A large one volume recommendation would be Sir James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough'

Once you see the continuity in how humankind has conceived of the world and their place in it through all the advances (evolutionary, technologically, and otherwise), it becomes sooooo much easier to see how how f-ing complicated and yet eerily clear things are....

Aug 3 2013:
Daniel,
The long arm of TED is at play(i guess). It's been volatile at times, I remember "The Power of the Myth" PBS series & book , I think I have it in my library ,I'll dust it off and have a gander.

Aug 3 2013:
Eerily clear.... I mean, like, send a satellite/spaceship like Voyager out into the unknown with a little treasure trove of human-kind-so-far on it.... a little of the best of all of our something out into such great nothing and that really puts everything into perspective...

Jul 31 2013:
Did space, time, matter, energy, etc. exits before the big bang?
And could there be a parallel dimension in which the big bang never happened?

P.S.
Here is an imagination exercise: Try imaging a dimension a in which the big bang resulted in light instead of matter.

*We have 118 chemical-elements; it has 118 light-elements.
*We have conscious life made of groups of chemical-elements; it has conscious life made of groups of light-elements.
*We have time, and I would think Albert Einstein would say “time is meaningless there”.
*could the life there be what religions calls Angels?

Jul 31 2013:
Don,
Wow!
You ask an extremely important and valid question that dazzles scientists all over the world (folks get up every morning to work on it)! It's still an open question. Perhaps nothing existed, Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality.
To your second question: a second parallel dimension in which (our?) BB did not happened? or it didn't have one of its own? -to me?-unknown-

Jul 30 2013:
I take a fairly simple approach to this question. What does space and time exist inside of?

We know space and time exists. If everything must exist inside of space and time... then that would mean that space and time would have to exist inside itself in order to exist, but that doesn't make any sense. Therefore there must be some property which allows space and time to exist without it having to exist inside something else.

Objects within space and time are spatial and temporal objects, and therefore require the spatial and temporal dimensions, via space and time, to exist. SpaceTime itself cannot be a spatial or temporal object, for it would require itself to exist before it could exist... within itself. Since spaceTime doesn't need to be a spatial or temporal object, then I imagine it isn't too far of a stretch to say that there are other objects that are not spatial or temporal. Some of these non spatial or temporal objects may very well be used to generate space and time itself, like some trans-dimensional machine, but thats an idea for a later date.

So not only could God exist beyond spaceTime, many many other things could as well.

That's my opinion anyway, not scientifically proven fact by any means , but I think it holds up pretty well.

Jul 30 2013:
Sterling,
Spacetime is "all else" at any given point in the known universe is "the" container.It does not require a "place to exist , it is "the" place itself." objects that are not spatial or temporal" is not logical since "to be" in any place(in this universe or other) any object would have to exist in a place and a time(otherwise there will be no object to exist).
We can postulate the existence of a place that is beyond our known space & time but so far no-one has come up with the goods.

Jul 31 2013:
Sterling,
Something or anything that exists in this -our universe- exists(or existed) in objective spacetime. Short answer-Yes-
I don't follow Plato's form theory,
I think about it in this terms: Let's say I have a glass jar and inside of it is the "perfect" medication that cures cancer. You and I will see that is empty(unfortunately).

So,we may imagine a medication that indeed could cure such a disease,but in the realm of the imaginary or the ideas -well is useless - unless, unless the idea is available as a fact in this spacetime that is, it can be obtained in a place and a given time. It will be a lot of hard work,-even luck-who knows? to bring such a blessing to mankind.

Or like in Engineering, you can have an idea of the "perfect bridge" or you may think that a "perfect bridge" is independent from your conscious idea of it and has some sort of metaphysical existence of its own (who in a metaphysical realms needs bridges, or perfect bridges for that matter?) but to me the "bridge" is the we one that was planned and built and folks and vehicles transit on.
Are my ideas the "truth"?- I don't know -but they sure work for me.